Tuesday, June 04, 2013

The inflationary theory of cosmology, an enduring theory about our universe and how it was formed, explains that just after the Big Bang, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion. This theory has been critical to understanding what’s going on in the cosmos today. But now, this long-held notion—which seems to suggest as-yet-unproven and perhaps unprovable features such as the multiverse—is under increasing attack. Through informed debate among architects of the inflationary theory and its prime competitors, this program will explore our best attempts to understand where we came from.
See: Multiverse: One Universe or Many

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

At the heart of modern cosmology is a
mystery: Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create
the conditions necessary for life? In this tour de force tour of some of
science's biggest new discoveries, Brian Greene shows how the
mind-boggling idea of a multiverse may hold the answer to the riddle.

Brian Greene is perhaps the best-known proponent of superstring
theory, the idea that minuscule strands of energy vibrating in a higher
dimensional space-time create every particle and force in the universe.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Certainly do not know who the fellow is in present image(Gregg Braden).....but for now, that is not important. He is not important and his message.....about life.....I am concerned about the science. As I watch the Tibetan Monk there is a question for me about the boundary and the infinite. These same notions of belief about the multiverse too have hidden in them thoughts from a scientific point of view(think of The Fabric of the Cosmos IV) as well as a spiritual perspective as shown in YouTube video above. Put the spiritual wording aside then. What is it we strive to do then about something then greater then ourselves? Is this what we are doing?

Of course I am seeking responsible questions about the nature of reality as they are are very important to me.

So indeed it would have been much easier for me to see the traced pathways of routes that any of us took could become a pathway for another to experience and understand. This is not about "What the Bleep" and the value of the entry of the video above, is something more then what is ascertain by such description of what could have fueled those local universes. What is to become the motivation of what could have progressed from the Big Bang to become the eternal inflation?

Yet can we not say that each of us has their individual pathway of experience is but to know that "such a tunnel" predates and points toward the idea of expression as a viable option to the life unfolding for us. Is it real? What is your motivation for being then if not to have a "driving force for expression?" Your acceptance to participate?

So such a tunnel for expression then becomes a method by which all undergo the process toward us saying something that is real when and only when....or indeed, is it illusory? So we accept "the tunnel as real?" Such a format becomes a method by which such expression for life is "becoming?"

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

I wanted to expand on where the title,"Another Kind of Sideways." This blog posting came from an interview with Clifford of Asymptotia by PBS. He had a posting of his own entitled Multiverse Musings about a Nova series on PBS in the Fall related to Brian Greene's book, The Fabric of the Cosmos.

Where would these other universes be in relation to ours? Is there a way to envision it?

Well, we live in three spatial dimensions: We move back and forth, up and down, left to right. And then there's time, so that's our four-dimensional universe. Another universe might be essentially right next to ours by going in another direction that's not one of those four. We might call it "another kind of sideways." See: Riddles of the Multiverse

The whole context of the idea of the Multiverse could have in my layman view be classified as speaking about and argued as the basis of "existing outside of time." I just wanted to say that mathematically this definition of the Multiverse can actually exist in that framework, yet had to be extrapolated to the real universe we live in and how other universes may apply.

SOCRATES: But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch of knowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him all this? You must know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.SEE:Meno by Plato

I am always interested in the way a correlation is struck, from a scientist's mind when looking at the world and the comparisons they may find in the real world. I mean, to stand on top of a mountain as I did, you get this sense of the terrain, and how the landscape appears. How from an idealist position, a mathematical position is described and how the universe can be described?

I find it hard sometimes to try and explain something that is "not outside of time." That such description of reality while confounding to those like me less able to understand the mathematical world of such truths that contrary to Lee Smolin's opinion such schematics can be found to exist "within each of us." How we build our world from the inside, and how we contain it.

Is the mathematical description of polytopes any less real as a mathematical basis?

If one is to believe that a mountain top represents some "perfect symmetry" then what said all those places in the valleys can exist and would not represent some genus figure? What are we saying about the possible universes, locations within the universe, and the creation of?

That a pencil standing on point, could fall one way or another, or a description of a false vacuum to a true could represent something leading away from such symmetry? Why the problem with such mathematical and schematize attributes? Would you as a scientist turn your back on such mathematical interpretations of the world?

This post on the Multiverse of mine, may be an "psychological interpretation" here that I would like to bring forward. This may be distasteful for people of science. Please bear with me as I try to explain myself, and not sanction me to a site that has issues with "ten dimensions and and quantum tunnelling?":)

The Flower as a Universe in Expression

So I will open the above with an example of one of the flowers done up with regards to Mandalic interpretations. This has been part of my research to understand the "individuality of each persons expression" from the inside out. As if, one understood the "liminocentric structure" develop from the schematic of the "circle with a point" in it, "to a point" with a boundary condition that is contained, as an equation of E=mc2.

AS well the student here is learning to give credence to a "way of enlightenment" that foreshadows what can exist as "this schematic mathematical diagram," could find itself looking quite nicely in such a expression as that of a flower.

I think one can be detracted by good pictures as to the originality of how we might see the universe in expression. So "without further explanation" we might say yes indeed they are good pictures of flowers without understanding the inheritance of the explanation forth coming.

So the idea here is not to be judgemental of the "book by it's cover" until one has considered the explanation that is forthcoming. As one weights what the expression of any universe can mean, while within it, there are evidences for the possibilities of what exists as our own universe, was granted a design, as one might grant each galaxy in expression?

Take an event within the colliders and tell how each will react according to the energies used?

I may have been attracted to this one for consideration by implicating the "music of the spheres" in my previous comments so however words are transported back and forth between scientists, or "the insinuation" of JoAnne of Cosmic Variance has for it, I cannot help the way I see.:)

OKay now. On to the explanation, as I have learnt to understand it, and then, what ever fate I have assigned to me and this becomes the way of it for me? Cracked flower pot and all.

Bubble Nucleation

During a first-order phase transition, the matter fields get trapped in a `false vacuum' state from which they can only escape by nucleating bubbles of the new phase, that is, the `true vacuum' state. See here for correlating Post.

Now is it enough that I identify the "source of such expressions" to advance the "geometrical inherent of form" as a universe in expression? So where did this design come from. How could anything issue from such "chaos implied in all the possibilities" that we might have the universe we did in this one?

So by looking at the picture below you get this sense of why the "sombrero as a hat" serves us well to explain the nature of gravitational considerations while this "collapse of the sphere" can produce all kinds of models of geometrical expressions, as a Calabi Yau?

The "landscape" has been something of a issue, as I have travelled through the last couple of years, watching scientists go back and forth in debate. They have their reasons why of course.

I will not assign "a label" although I use them here in this blog "to categorize the times that I have ventured onto a particular subject." I will not succumb to "any categories" that insinuate that "one group of scientists belong to let's say the "Templeton Foundation" and thusly criticize them, as being insignificant and deluded. "Founding a movement" to change society other then, what society wants itself to become.

So by characterization I have learnt to not hold any woman or man to the "fate of character alone," or the "choices they make." But to see the basis of science is continually being adhered to on a level of "correlation of cognition." Given, the experiment and facts, what does one conclude to do while they venture forward? What do they pull toward them, as they theorize about the science?

How is their philosophy imbued them to speak, while there is this underlying mathematical basis to the world? Is it all "flowery or drawn to the arts" that it detracts from the science? Are there not ways that art helps science visualize what has come from their thought processes?

So Tegmark saids,"the universe is not a bagel?" And we have all these ideas about the "shape of the universe." Cosmology likes em large, while the Calabi Yau-ist like it small? Okay, not small, but descriptively unique?

Immediately what came to mind is the reductionist views we have about the beginnings of the universe. The picture above, came to mind. And from it, all the ideas that I had been reading about when I had engaged the topic of the universe in question.

THis is a interesting question and if you read what anyone might of surmized, how different would this simplification of the question be, if it is holding all the answers to what really happened at the start of that universe?

Keeping sharp on the nature of speculations.:)Well of course "timing is everything" and if one ask a question in one part of the uiverse how could it ever been related to what Lubos writes in his? Well I have to speak to that:)

So right away seeing this is a good question to ask, and based on what one had been learning as they engaged science, how consistant would this story be with what is actually been taking place in science? One guess is as good as another? Or are there simplified versions that we could pass onto our children so that they understood the fullscope of this story of creation.

Now you must remember, as a student and a older one at that, there will always be mistakes. Being granted this reprieve for a time(writing our fiction?), while we look at the question asked, what do I think? Hmmmm.... interesting question.

So at the very top of this page there was a problem right away about such containment, and if I was to ask where and how would such conditions emerge for such a thing as the beginning of the universe to be known, why could I not explain it in my immediate environ, where cosmic particle collsions mimic what we are doing in our colliders?

Is this not simple enough to ask, that such a question could bring perspective not ony from the very beginning of our universe, but to have corralled it to what is happening now. These two things are very important to bring together so that we understand that creation exists in our terminologies, as if every moment has the potential to be created as it was in the very beginning of that universe.

Isn't this stance important to comprehend as I begin my story?

As I have been talking about, for so long, I wonder where it would end, that I soon learnt in mind that such a processes had to be cyclical in nature, yet, how could energy start off in place and go through all the phases to have become contained in the "possibility again" to continue this process.

So here this is another insight into the nature of my story.

One would have to have surmized the very beginning, and some might called is the sea from which all things arise and it is mythical in nature, that all life arose from this sea of possibilty?

Of course in my own artistic rendition, the shakespearean heart arose from my lips touched to ask. "To be or not to be," is not the question.

Of course I would have to give credit to Paul(not in the bible) for his early interpretation of the design shown above so as to wonder about such a procreative design to have said, "this is indeed the measure of our reality while we look back to it's beginning?"

So you needed this measure of "certainty" to ask how is it that such a beginning could have ever emerge from the "values of light" that it could contain information about our beginnings? I know it seems I may be getting too technical for the average Joe?

So it indeed becomes really difficult to contain the very expansive nature of the universe in such a boundary condition, does it not? So you look for the basis of reality in a way that allows such travel or "tunnelling" to help push the idea I have about my story of creation. It is parts and pieces of the that exemplify our ideas about the origins of nature, to wonder, if that energy began? Where did it?

It is very impotrant to set up the "nature of reality" as it began, yet, it is not so simple then to ask that if zeropoint had this basis of reality as well, what existed in this false vacuum, to have it exemplified the resulting information which travelled "through to the universe" as we now know it?

You had to wonder, and know that such phase changes began in the very beginning,and as the universe unfolded, to have given "all that is" a place in this timeline of expression, to have made it, to what is in the nature of the cosmo?

It did not mean that we could not find our moments and secondary showers from such a beginning, not to have traced it back and know, that this beginning point was really never so far away? They do it in the colliders. They have t account for this energy, and some of it is missing.

So containement was a problem, and with it we began to use these analogies for describing "backreaction." Oh, we have some mode of time travel here? Or, that we may have some idea about what is geometriclaly enhanced in our talks, to have actually followed the physics process?

Yes, I did that too.

I referenced tunnelling for very specific reasons, but alas, I too have to ask then that if such dissipated forces are the continued unravelling of that fluid state, then how would such information be released in the secondary shower effect?

The nature of our universe in continued expression?

That means that it left something somewhere for the false vacuum to have initiated the transferance of the original information, back, into the design of the cosmos?

I like analogies for that reason, and if some want to write fiction, while they hold other minds to the constraints applied in our reasoning of that science, then you should be prepared to suffer the consequence of what any mind like that of a Kaku, or Greene, in those extra story telling versions?

You will be targetted for all the insane things you might hence forward say. It's just somethng I noticed when I tried to go deeper into the world that science brings us.:)Scientists can indeed be unkind to each other?